20 comentarios:

I just came home after seeing it and I truly recommend that you go. In my opinion the actors (each and every actor) did a very good job, and the script, I think is great. It speaks about honesty, corruption, and relationships. Taking place in Russia, the characters and the story are surprisingly close to us... Knowing nothing about the play, I believe the adaptation (from 8h to 2h30, and towards Spanish) is quite good.

Elena I’m deeply sorry but I can’t help but disagree with you. For me the best of Platonov was the supper Miguel Angel and I enjoyed at Café Oliver after the play (we needed something to reward ourselves after “that”).While being alive, Chejov never premiered that play, now I understand why, he realized it wasn’t good. We say in Spanish “the best writer throws an inkblot” and there is no doubting that Platonov is Chejov’s inkblot.The actors reminded me my old school plays. They didn’t speak, they recited. I only liked Alexandra and the outlaw, but, the rest!!!!To have something useful to do while I was losing my time so miserably, I was comparing Platonov with Mr. Carton and thinking what Carmen would said in class about this or that situation, or, this or that behaviour. In my opinion we need in Spain, urgently, some schools of direction (My God! How bad our directors of theatre are!!) and interpretation, but, PLEASE with English teachers!!!!!

I am afraid I disagree with you Paloma. It's true the play was somehow repetitive as the script is concerned and a bit slow and long, but the characters were pretty well depicted and performed. I am a little fed up with your being annoyed when talking about Spanish Theatre. Of course we have good actors and actress..and good plays as well! Every time I attend a play I try to keep or retain the positive things so as to learn and enjoy as much as possible. Didn't you find really something valuable yesterday?? What about the scenography?? Wasn't good enough for any of you??I could also find Mr.Carton on Platonov's character!

Well, we must have seen two different plays, Paloma. The script was rich enough to make you think about a lot of topics... And well, I really enjoyed the actors' performance! The characters were really well depicted too. Maybe the rhythm fell in the second part, but I totally share Natalia's opinion. The scenography was pretty good! In the beginning, the scene in which everyone was at stage was great!!

I didn´t like the play. First part was very weak, old actors were bad, not really characters, young actors were schematical, not well built. This play was a try, not a complete work as Chejov did later. We only could know Platonov, however, I was not able to see the evolution. Platonov was dying as the plot was going on, but the actor didn´t know to perform this, to transmit this sensation. Second part being the dramatical one, people laughed at some sentences and some movements, which made me feel ashamed. It means that it was a failure as audience didn´t understand the tragedy, which is Vera and actors´ fault. Ana was the best, in my opinion, and also the poor man, the bandit, did a tolerable role. Sofía would have been a very good character to perform, but the actress who interpreted it didn´t express anything. A pity. Alexandra would be another good role, but I thought as Platonov, she seemed silly as a fly...What is the next play we´ll see???

Elena and Natalia. I think that the idea was good, not the performance. When they were at stage all together, they were not put in the play yet, I think, and there was disorder. It was difficult for me to concentrate in the plot and the talkings. The scenary was good, I agree.

I do not think it was so bad as a lot of us found it. It is too long, repetitive, boring and it was so hot in the theatre that I only wanted the end to come, so when he was shot I felt relieved. Chejov should have corrected the play.the actors were a failure All, Carmen Machi included, none of them were credible. Could a lady look like Carmen Machi? Actors in Spain just fall short. The best for me was the crazy one.Platonov himself is not well explained, didi anyone think that women would fall for that man?? As to being like Carton Where are his good qualities and good feelings? He had NONE. I cannot remember who was Miguel Angel, Platonov? the bandit? tell us, Paloma, because were very poor performers, indeed!! I´m glad, however you had a good time in Oliver, I´ve told you that at least the drink afterwards is a good thing..by the way how many of you went partying after? I had a dinner party that´s why i left so quickly.I agree with Natalia that we have to try and be positive about watching plays...thiugh it is difficult sometimes, because we have to face that there is little good ... often.I´ll point out some good: we could see how women react with some men they like, they form an opinion of them which bears little resemblance to truth, as was the case with all the women in the play but very clearly so with the once who denounced him and falls down at his feet!!

Women can react like that at first, but then they see the truth. Once the truth is noticed, women can continue or stop; all depends on what men are able to offer us and whether it fits with what we want.The play should have gone a little further on so that we can see the end of the couple. An early end, as I think as Carmen, a Chemist (nor anyone) could not fall in love forever with such a swine.

I have finally found the courage to write my opinion about the play because as usual it is a negative one. IT WAS TERRIBLE. Not only was the play weak, and I agree with Paloma Chejov must have been aware of it and that is why he never published it, but it was really badly acted.I agree with Carmen the script if revised would have been much better. As it is it was boring repetitive and lacking in interest. The characters were not credible, one couldn´t see the charm that was suppossed to have. What did women see in him??? I think the director thought his penis would impress us and that is why the actor stripped, but honestly with that ridiculous little worm, I´m sorry to be so cruel, and that podgy body, who could be???I was very disappointed with Machi too, my God, she is only fit to do a servant, one thought she was fit to be the bandit´s wife, not a gentleman´s. But when one thinks of it, were they not all vulgar??? Spitting, sitting in the mating position always with open legs and vulgar movements?It is a tragedy to have these actors and these directors. After what we saw!! There was no vulgarity in the English plays, we could believe what they were telling us.I agree with Paloma we need a good school and English teachers, we need to do a little bit of self-criticism. Both actors and directors have to realise that they are not good and then from that point start to practise and study.

I have finally found the courage to write my opinion about the play because as usual it is a negative one. IT WAS TERRIBLE. Not only was the play weak, and I agree with Paloma Chejov must have been aware of it and that is why he never published it, but it was really badly acted.I agree with Carmen the script if revised would have been much better. As it is it was boring repetitive and lacking in interest. The characters were not credible, one couldn´t see the charm that was suppossed to have. What did women see in him??? I think the director thought his penis would impress us and that is why the actor stripped, but honestly with that ridiculous little worm, I´m sorry to be so cruel, and that podgy body, who could be???I was very disappointed with Machi too, my God, she is only fit to do a servant, one thought she was fit to be the bandit´s wife, not a gentleman´s. But when one thinks of it, were they not all vulgar??? Spitting, sitting in the mating position always with open legs and vulgar movements?It is a tragedy to have these actors and these directors. After what we saw!! There was no vulgarity in the English plays, we could believe what they were telling us.I agree with Paloma we need a good school and English teachers, we need to do a little bit of self-criticism. Both actors and directors have to realise that they are not good and then from that point start to practise and study.

Oh! I see, I must have it read too quickly!! So Miguel Angel is your husband!!!! How amazing that I did not click!!! I thought you had written the best was Miguel Angel and concluded it was one of the actors.